↓ Skip to main content

Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa
Published in
Trials, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-2034-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee Aymar Ndounga Diakou, Francine Ntoumi, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to improve health care in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions can prevent the transposition of research in practice which leads waste of research. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the avoidable waste in research related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions in RCTs performed in SSA. We performed a methodological systematic review of RCTs performed in SSA and published between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2015. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library and the African Index Medicus to identify reports. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and for each risk of bias item, determined whether easy adjustments with no or minor cost could change the domain to low risk of bias. The reporting of interventions was assessed by using standardized checklists based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, and core items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Corresponding authors of reports with incomplete reporting of interventions were contacted to obtain additional information. Data were descriptively analyzed. Among 121 RCTs selected, 74 (61%) evaluated pharmacological treatments (PTs), including drugs and nutritional supplements; and 47 (39%) nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs) (40 participative interventions, 1 surgical procedure, 3 medical devices and 3 therapeutic strategies). Overall, the randomization sequence was adequately generated in 76 reports (62%) and the intervention allocation concealed in 48 (39%). The primary outcome was described as blinded in 46 reports (38%), and incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 78 (64%). Applying easy methodological adjustments with no or minor additional cost to trials with at least one domain at high risk of bias could have reduced the number of domains at high risk for 24 RCTs (19%). Interventions were completely reported for 73/121 (60%) RCTs: 51/74 (68%) of PTs and 22/47 (46%) of NPTs. Additional information was obtained from corresponding authors for 11/48 reports (22%). Inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of published SSA RCTs could be improved by easy and inexpensive methodological adjustments and adherence to reporting guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Librarian 3 11%
Professor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Computer Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,303,230
of 16,849,755 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#431
of 4,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,862
of 271,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,849,755 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.